Simon Magus and Needing a Temple Recommend to Perform Ordinances

[wuapinmon]

Acts 8:9-24 details the story of Simon Magus (Simon the Sorcerer) attempting to buy the Priesthood so that he can bless people the way that Peter and the other Apostles had been doing on the Pentecost.

He is rebuked severely by Peter for "trying to buy the Gift of God with money." While I understand the reasons why Simon was rebuked, I've been thinking about my bishop's recent statement that people who don't have temple recommends cannot participate in any ordinances (even though the handbook says they can with his permission). He's choosing a more hardline approach to "worthiness."

Since you cannot have a temple recommend without paying your tithing, is his approach correct vis-à-vis the story of Simon Magus? If someone is worthy in every other way, should tithing bar them from baptizing their own children or blessing their babies? I know it isn't a perfect comparison, but it's something my brain has been turning over ever since I heard him say that.

I'm curious about what everyone else thinks.

[Eddie]

I don't think that requiring payment of tithing to have a temple recommend is akin to purchasing the priesthood. There are sacrifices that come with "living worthy". Tithing is one of those sacrifices. But I view it as an act of faith rather than an act of purchasing of something. If you're speaking of purchasing something, to me that would look more like you show up at the Bishop's office with a check and get your recommend. No interview necessary.

Personally - I tend to believe that there should be some demonstration of belief and/or faith if someone is going to participate as the voice in priesthood ordinances. Particularly saving ordinances (which obviously makes blessing a baby different than baptism.)

We've heard stories in General Conference of church leaders grabbing an inactive father and having that father participate in the giving of a blessing. Often the story includes that the father has not been attending, has been a drinker or smoker, etc. I'm going to assume that these fathers probably weren't paying tithing. I could see taking a stand that participating in the blessing is a demonstration of faith in the priesthood. Or a recognition of it, at least.

But when it comes to ordinances, I think I view those differently. I kind of feel like there has to be some judgement on the part of the Bishop. I believe it would be important for the person performing the ordinance to have a sincere desire to live worthy - even if they have struggles. And I believe that they would need to have some level of faith or belief - not just a desire to participate in the culturally Mormon activities to keep a spouse or grandparents happy.

I'm not sure how the Bishop judges that. But I could see Bishops not wanting to get into the habit of having inactive fathers showing up to perform ordinances on their children - and having those events be the only times they show up.

[Moliere]

I think your bishop is overstepping his bounds. Paying tithing or having a temple recommend shouldn't be a requirement to bless a baby or baptize someone. Those are lesser ordinances performed by the Aaronic Priesthood and even the new handbook is lax on the requirements to do them.

In fact, it's silly to require a recommend at all for performing any ordinance. One should just be worthy. Having a slip of paper saying you were worthy at some point in the past doesn't change the validity of the ordinance. I also don't find the requirement of being a full tithe payer akin to purchasing the priesthood. There are stark differences between the two, one obvious difference being that a poor person without a job, and this not paying tithing, is just as worthy to perform an ordained as Mitt Romney with all his money.

On a little bit of a tangent, there is a strong push recently to keep recommends renewed. It's one of the key indicators of the quarterly report that is sent to HQ so maybe your bishop is just finding a way to force people to get a recommend.

[Eddie]

Another tangent...

I do think it is interesting that requirements change depending on level of priesthood and in or out of the temple.

For instance - a priest can baptize. But a priest cannot baptize for the dead in the temple. Not sure what the difference is - it's the same baptism, isn't it?

[Eddie]

I think your bishop is overstepping his bounds. Paying tithing or having a temple recommend shouldn't be a requirement to bless a baby or baptize someone. Those are lesser ordinances performed by the Aaronic Priesthood and even the new handbook is lax on the requirements to do them...

- Baby blessings still require the Melchizedek priesthood, don't they?

[falafel]

Another tangent...

I do think it is interesting that requirements change depending on level of priesthood and in or out of the temple.

For instance - a priest can baptize. But a priest cannot baptize for the dead in the temple. Not sure what the difference is - it's the same baptism, isn't it?

No, now its a temple ordinance for the dead.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Simon Magus can be critiqued on the same grounds as the Gnostics--people had to pay for access to the mysteries.

[Moliere]

- Baby blessings still require the Melchizedek priesthood, don't they?

Shoot, yes. I guess it's not a saving ordinance

[Bo Diddley]

...my bishop's recent statement that people who don't have temple recommends cannot participate in any ordinances...

What if the member has not been endowed?

[wuapinmon]

Simon Magus can be critiqued on the same grounds as the Gnostics--people had to pay for access to the mysteries.

Well, isn't needing a recommend to attend the temple akin to that?

[Pelado]

Well, isn't needing a recommend to attend the temple akin to that?

Not entirely. Someone who has no income is not required to pay anything.

[Northwestcoug]

The question is "Are you a full-tithe payer?", not "If you have income, do you pay tithing?"

I think the implication is there are very, very few people who are practically exempt from the law of tithing. Indeed, the church membership has been counseled to pay tithing before necessities such as food, rent, and utilities. Other than students and the unemployed, who are we talking about, really? What percentage of the church can we say are not exempt from paying for a temple recommend?

I won't argue the point that tithing is a test of faith and sacrifice. JS himself said that a church/gospel that doesn't ask for sacrifice doesn't have the power to save, so that sentiment is certainly consistent with doctrine. But at the very heart of it, yes, you have to pay money to get exalted. You can nuance that as a test of faith, but I don't see how you can argue against that basic premise.

[Moliere]

The question is "Are you a full-tithe payer?", not "If you have income, do you pay tithing?"

I think the implication is there are very, very few people who are practically exempt from the law of tithing. Indeed, the church membership has been counseled to pay tithing before necessities such as food, rent, and utilities. Other than students and the unemployed, who are we talking about, really? What percentage of the church can we say are not exempt from paying for a temple recommend?

I won't argue the point that tithing is a test of faith and sacrifice. JS himself said that a church/gospel that doesn't ask for sacrifice doesn't have the power to save, so that sentiment is certainly consistent with doctrine. But at the very heart of it, yes, you have to pay money to get exalted. You can nuance that as a test of faith, but I don't see how you can argue against that basic premise.

I don't disagree, but I find it funny that people focus so much on money. What's the difference between donating money and donating your time? In a capitalistic society, time is money, literally. If someone refuses to serve in the church, they are also in violation of one of their covenants and therefore also not worthy.

I honestly like the way the question is phrased. Someone can answer yes regardless of whether they Paton net or gross, on their increase, on their interest annually, etc. Most bishops won't blink an eye if someone declared themselves full tithe payers regardless of the amount paid unless it is quite clearly way out of the norm, and even then they may not even ask. It's one of the awesome blessings of having a clergy whose salary has nothing to do with the amount of tithing that is paid into the Ward.

[Northwestcoug]

I don't disagree, but I find it funny that people focus so much on money. What's the difference between donating money and donating your time? In a capitalistic society, time is money, literally. If someone refuses to serve in the church, they are also in violation of one of their covenants and therefore also not worthy.

I honestly like the way the question is phrased. Someone can answer yes regardless of whether they Paton net or gross, on their increase, on their interest annually, etc. Most bishops won't blink an eye if someone declared themselves full tithe payers regardless of the amount paid unless it is quite clearly way out of the norm, and even then they may not even ask. It's one of the awesome blessings of having a clergy whose salary has nothing to do with the amount of tithing that is paid into the Ward.

That is a good point. I guess money as tithing wasn't as big a deal in the 19th century. Still, money generally has a bad connotation in spiritual matters, even back then.

[wuapinmon]

What if the member has not been endowed?

SeattleUte would say to do it anyway.

He didn't comment (this was a 5th Sunday lesson, so almost every single person there was endowed).